The general’s loose lips

From today’s editorials: The President was right to dump Gen. Stanley McChrystal. His comments, and those of tops aides, undermined the chain of command and, ultimately, the very notion that military policy is dictated by civilian leaders, not generals.

____________________

There is probably enough political and military intrigue surrounding Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s relationship with the Obama administration to fill a book. One that General McChrystal may well want to write — in a retirement that is well-deserved in, unfortunately, too many ways.

President Obama was right to relieve General McChrystal of his command of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and put Gen. David Petraeus in charge. The choice of General Petraeus, who led the effort that turned the Iraq war around, could do much to repair the damage done in recent days.

Any disruption this shake-up causes in the short term pales beside what General McChrystal brought about in exercising exceedingly poor judgment in the comments he made, and those he allowed to be made by his top advisers.

The storm General McChrystal sparked this week was about far more than a personality clash between him and some suits in Washington. It was a sign, and not the first, that, while he may be a fine soldier, General McChrystal failed to fully appreciate that U.S. military policy is drafted by civilians and executed by generals. Publicly disparaging the President, the vice president and other key figures in the war effort jeopardized the respect for a chain of command that goes higher than him. It fundamentally challenged the President’s constitutional role as commander in chief.

General McChrystal may have intended nothing of the sort. For all appearances, he dropped his guard — a surprising misstep for the former commander of elite special operations units in Iraq — and gave a journalist abundant access to himself and his staff. He and his men spoke their minds about the President, Vice President Biden, U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, and Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, among others. They mocked Mr. Biden and spoke disparagingly about Mr. Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke. They depicted the President as uninformed and intimidated by the military.

Their actions sent messages in all sorts of unfortunate directions. They signaled to troops called on to fight this war that there is dissension and disrespect among their leaders. They signaled to a thinning alliance of other nations that the U.S. leadership is frayed and conflicted. They signaled internal discord to the enemy. And they signaled to the American public, weary of what is now the longest war in our history and uncertain if the sacrifice is worth it, that those leading the war are hardly unified on the strategy and chance for success.

General McChrystal certainly knew better. He had already caused stirs with last year’s leak of his report on the war in which he pressed the President for more forces, and for publicly denouncing Mr. Biden’s counter-proposal to scale back troops.

We don’t fault General McChrystal for having doubts about and disagreements with his superiors and colleagues. But if they were too much to bear, the right thing to do was not to blow off steam in public at the same time he was wearing a uniform and leading troops into battle.